Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: MHCC010097762019
Presented on 21-09-2019
Registered on 02-12-2019
Decided on 24-03-2025
Duration Year Month Days
05 06 03
CNR No. MHCC010097762019
EXH.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MAZGAON
SUMMARY SUIT NO.1198 OF 2019
Falco Auto Corporation,
A proprietary firm
Having its office at
22, Dilip Niwas, Benham Hall Lane,
Opera House,
Mumbai – 400004.
through its Proprietor
Mrs. Kamaljit Kaur Chadha, aged 49 years,
Indian, Inhabitant of Mumbai.
...Plaintiff.
Versus
1. Shri Swami Samarth Automobiles And Services
Proprietor firm having their
address at Talegaon Road,
Killay Dharur – 431124,
Dist – Beed.
-- 1 of 6 --
Suit 1198 of 2019 .. J/2 .. Judgment
2. Ananta Subhas Bhosle
Age not known
Adult, Indian Inhabitant Proprietor of
Defendant No.1 Shri Swami Samarth Automobiles
And Services having their
Address at Talegaon Road,
Killay Dharur – 431124,
Dist – Beed.
...Defendants.
Appearances:
Ld. Adv. Geet Chadda For the plaintiff
Ex parte For defendants.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
N. B. LAVTE
(C.R.No.83)
DATED: 24th March, 2025
J U D G M E N T
(Suit under Order XXXVII OF C.P.C.)
This is a Summary Suit filed under Order XXXVII of the
Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of an amount of Rs.89,705/- with
interest @ 18% p.a.
2. In short the case of the plaintiff is that :
The plaintiff is sole proprietor of Falco Auto Corporation
dealing in motor spare parts. The defendant is in the business of retail
trading of motor spare parts. In view of the orders placed by defendants
from time to time, goods were supplied and delivered on credit basis
-- 2 of 6 --
Suit 1198 of 2019 .. J/3 .. Judgment
and invoice No.184 dated 12.08.2017 for Rs.1,09,049/-, invoice No.211
dated 22.08.2017 for Rs.1,24,830/- and invoice No.275 dated
10.08.2017 for Rs.19,648/- were raised. The defendants were having
running credit account. The goods were supplied through Batco
Roadlines Corporation. Again defendant had placed an order of
Rs.1,53,527/- which were sent through Batco Roadlines and bill and
consignee copy of Lorry receipt was sent by speed post/RPAD. The
defendants issued 4 cheques, however, 2 of them returned unpaid with
remark ‘fund insufficient’ and the 2 cheques were not deposited as
defendants promised to transfer the money through NEFT which they
failed. Hence, on 08.05.2018 legal demand notice was issued calling
upon defendants to make the payment. Thus there is an outstanding
amount of Rs.69,005/-. Hence, the suit.
3. The defendants were duly served but they failed to appear,
hence, by an order dated 24.06.2022 suit was directed to proceed ex-
parte.
4. From the pleadings of plaintiff, following points arise for
my consideration and determination to which I have given my findings
alongwith reasons as under:
Sr. Points Findings
1. Is plaintiff entitled for recovery of an amount of
Rs.89,705/- alongwith principal amount of
Rs.69,005/- with interest @ 18% p.a. ?
Partly
Affirmative.
2. What order and decree ? As per final
order
-- 3 of 6 --
Suit 1198 of 2019 .. J/4 .. Judgment
REASONS
5. In order to prove the suit claim, authorised representative
Mrs. Kamaljit Kaur Chadha filed her evidence vide (Exh.3). Whereas,
reliance is placed on the following documents namely, Sec.65-b
Certificate (Exh.5), 3 invoices alongwith lorry receipts (Exh.7 Colly), 4
cheques (Exh.8 Colly), Legal demand notice and RPAD postal receipts
and acknowledgment (Exh.9 colly) and particulars of claim (Exh.10).
AS TO POINT NO. 1.
6. Heard Adv. Baaz Singh Chadha for plaintiff and gone
through the documents filed on record. It is plaintiff's case that they
had sold and supplied spare parts to defendants through Batco
Roadlines Corporation. Thereafter, invoices were raised, but, as the
remaining amount was not paid and the cheques were dishonoured,
hence suit was filed. The 3 invoices are at Exh.(7 Colly) shows goods
were supplied. The particulars of claim (Exh.10) reveals there is an
outstanding amount of Rs.69,005/-. Whereas, the 4 cheques (Exh.8
Colly) reveals the same were returned unpaid with remark ‘funds
insufficient’. Legal demand notice was issued on 08.05.2018, however,
no any payment was made.
7. As discussed above, as the suit proceeded ex-parte, hence
the evidence affidavit of the plaintiff which is verbatim of the plaint has
gone unchallenged. Therefore, considering the documents on record,
plaintiff proved there is an outstanding amount of Rs.69,005/-. As
regards the rate of interest plaintiff claimed 18% p.a., however in the
invoices there is no rate of interest mentioned nor it is an agreed rate of
interest. Therefore, I am of the view that being the transaction
commercial in nature, interest @ of 12% p.a on the principal amount
-- 4 of 6 --
Suit 1198 of 2019 .. J/5 .. Judgment
would be reasonable rate of interest. Hence, the point No.1 is answered
partly affirmative.
AS TO POINT NO.2:
8. In view of my finding to Point No.1, plaintiff is entitled to
recover an amount of Rs.69,005/- (principal amount) with interest @
12% p.a from from the date of filing of the suit till realization with
costs. In the result, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
1. The Summary Suit No.1198 of 2019 is partly decreed with costs.
2. The defendants are directed to pay to plaintiffs an amount of
Rs.69,005/- (Sixty Nine Thousand Five only) with interest @ 12%
p.a from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
3. The decree be drawn up accordingly.
4. R & P be sent to Record Department.
( N. B. Lavte )
Judge, (C.R.No.83)
Dt.:24-03-2025 City Civil Court, Mazgaon,
MUMBAI MUMBAI
Dictated on : 24-03-2025
Transcribed on : 27-03-2025
checked on : 04-04-2025
Signed on : 04-04-2025 (N. B. Lavte)
Judge, (C.R.No.83)
City Civil Court, Mazgaon, MUMBAI
-- 5 of 6 --
Suit 1198 of 2019 .. J/6 .. Judgment
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
04.04.2025 at 11.35 a.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME (VARSHA U. PAWAR)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge H.H.J.Shri. N. B. Lavte
(COURT ROOM NO.83)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
24.03.2025
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 04.04.2025
Judgment/order uploaded on
due to mistake of date
04.04.2025
-- 6 of 6 --